The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was reinstate all. -- Kbdank71 14:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Given complaints on the talk page, I'm posting this request for undeletion of the LGBT occupational subcategories. Personally, I think it's a bad idea to keep Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people but not any subcategories, because then the category gets way too large. Other people have said they need the subcatgories to put under e.g. "Category:Artists" or "Category:Musicians". See Wikipedia talk:Categories_for_deletion for more. The original deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 24. It's also worth considering whether these will be LGB or LGBT. Also, we need to decide what the threshold should be for undeletion. I propose that if a 50% majority supports recreation, that's sufficient. We generally need a 66% or more majority to support deletion, so 50% for undeletion prevents arbitrary flip-flopping. -- Beland 23:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. Unnecessary subcategorization. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and consistent with our previous decisions to delete occupational subcategories of Category:Italian-Americans and Category:Jews, this is too much. Categories should also group only meaningful relationships of characteristics, and someone's sexual orientation (just as ethnicity) and occupation are usually coincidental and arbitrary relationships to draw. Allowing for these kinds of categories also creates an inevitable mess on articles, as every ethnic and social identity would garner similar subcategories. Create lists if you must, which can then be annotated to explain the relationship, and the lists themselves can be categorized by both the general personal identity category and the general occupational category. Postdlf 23:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reinstate. Until one can search on multiple categories at the same time then some subcategories need to remain available, and these "LGBT xxxxx" group are one of those categorisations. -- Vamp: Willow 00:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. Not necessary. -- Kbdank71 02:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reinstate this very useful research tool which should NOT have been deleted. Jonathunder 03:54, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Reinstate -- Spinboy 04:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Hesitant reinstate. Some fields in particular can have a special relationship between sexuality and occupation. Writers, artists, and historians especially have devoted quite a bit of energy into connecting their sexuality and their work. This could also actually help to clean up category messes on articles. Instead of Category: Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people and Category: Artists, there would only be one required category, say, Category: Lesbian artists. There are also peculiar categories where this may be extremely important, say, Category: Lesbian feminists. As long as people are willing to maintain the categories I see no particular reason not to allow their existence. - Seth Mahoney 04:35, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Reinstate. These subcategories are created for immensely practical reasons (let's make some sense out of an otherwise enormous and clogged master category of lgb people! let's help readers move across widely searched and relevant common threads, like lgbt musicians or lgbt people in politics) and opposed for abstract theoretical grounds (cross-categorization isn't ideal! someday MediaWiki should really be able to process these automatically!) I agree with these abstract ideals too, but until the software support is there per VampWillow, let's let the category be manageable and useful for readers and editors interested in topics about lgbt people beyond just "lgb people." The consensus already accepts less-than-theoretically-ideal duplication between categories and lists because each can do for now some things the other can't. There's no reason not to do the same here. Samaritan 04:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• My own preference would obviously be to reinstate the categories, since I'm the one who started most of them in the first place and the one who technically set off the current discussion, but I'm willing to abide by any decision that gets made. My primary concern was that I'd like to believe that my contribution history is solid enough that if it's noticed that I created a page or a category that's up for deletion, somebody would think "Oh, he's a good enough contributor that he might have had a valid reason for doing this; maybe we should at least give him the opportunity to explain it." (And no, I don't think I'm special; I'd expect that courtesy to be extended to any established user with a relatively good reputation.) If my edits really ain't worth bat guano, feel free to disabuse me of my delusions of adequacy; otherwise, we should probably discuss some way to flag categories as "under discussion" (an asterisk in the category link? a policy that the creator should always be alerted to the discussion?) rather than assuming that people are always going to magically be aware of what's going on with everything they've ever edited. Bearcat 05:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reinstate For all the reasons stated above. I suggest that people read the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#LGBT_subcategories. Anyone serious about CfD should examine the original discussion and the follow up discussions linked above. This points out a serious problem with CfD which should be addressed somehow. Categories should be deleted ONLY if there is an overwhelming majority that agrees. If the majority cannot convince a vocal minority to change their oppinion, the category should stay. Wikipedia should be a big tent. -- Samuel Wantman 06:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • No, that is an invitation to groups of activists to foist their agendas on Wikipedia, regardless of the majority view, and there could hardly be a subject area where that is more likely to happen. Keep deleted. 06:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Above semi-signed vote from User:CalJW.
• Let them stay Deleted I really don't like these sort of "categorisation of people" categories - and do not see any advantage of grouping gays and bisexuals with transgendereds. It's one thing if the people who will be added to this category are activists in this area - in which case "people" should be replaced with "activists", but it's another if they are famous and well-known for other things and just happen to be gay or bisexual. And even if they are gay and bisexual, who's to say they would welcome being grouped with transgendered, which is different from gay, which is also different from bisexual. For me, the same would go for categorisation by religion, race, sex and preferred football team - unless we can replace "people" with "activist" we shouldn't be using these categories, jguk 07:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reinstate I see no harm in reinstating these - they are useful cat entries for people interested in finding out more than just LGB People. Megan1967 07:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reinstate, please. V. useful. Tobyox 10:56, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Reinstate. James F. (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• KEEP ANNIHILATED! - Super-POV and super-crazy, especially LGBT ANCIENT GREEKS! Andros 1337 20:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Was there a category LGBT ancient Greeks? I'd be surprised. Anyhow, that isn't how these categories are used. There are actually guidelines which are supposed to be followed, which inlcude not transferring our modern ideas regarding sexuality too far back in history - in other words, Alexander the Great doesn't get a LGBT tag. - Seth Mahoney 23:32, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ancient Greeks was one of the sub-cats deleted, if I recall. And Category:Alexander the Great is currently categorized under Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people. -- Azkar 00:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
      • I stand slightly corrected. It shouldn't be in that category. Why does Alexander the Great have his own category? - Seth Mahoney 02:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I agree with Jguk's comments. I must point out that such categories appear to be pushing a POV, and seems to be isolating a specific group of general society beyond what is neccesary in this site. It might turn out to be counter productive even.-- Huaiwei 20:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• What is necessary in this site? I mean, look, the categories are to be used for people who identify as gay, lesbian, etc. They've already isolated themselves in this sense, so we're not doing anything but affirming their identification. - Seth Mahoney 23:32, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

• This simply does not make sense. Wiipedia is not a place to "affirm" social isolation (a situation which itself is debatable and multi-faceted, may I add), but to present information in a holistic manner. Demanding for a LGBT catgory makes me wonder if we therefore need a category for heterosexuals, since providing balanced information is key to this site? For what purpose and gain will that do then?-- Huaiwei 19:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• I think you're reading 'affirm' in a sense other than how I meant it. Look, people identify as gay or whatever. 'Affirm' here just means we're saying, "yup, you did that. This is how you lived your life." It doesn't mean, "yup, you did that. We're throwing you a Wikipedia party to make you feel good about yourself." As far as heterosexual categories, though this has been covered elsewhere and in every debate about LGBT categories, articles, etc., here's a synopsis: People are assumed straight by default. We don't need hetero categories for the same reason we don't need white categories or categories for people who weren't vegetarians or for people who aren't feminists or for people aren't critical theorists or for people who aren't biblical scholars. There is also no (that I know of) specifically hetero scholarship, and the existence of LGBT scholarship is one of the primary reasons categories like this are useful. - Seth Mahoney 14:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

While on most points I agree, I very much disagree on "white" there - obviously, there are far more non-vegatarians or non-LGBT people out there, so assuming people eat meat or are cis-straight by default makes sense. Assuming people are white by default however makes sense only for countries and regions where there is neither a notable non-white minority nor a non-white majority. And that is not the case in most places on this planet. Most people on this planet are non-white, hence, white cannot be the default. -- AlexR 12:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reinstate. TreyHarris 21:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reinstate. CDThieme
• Reinstate, I must say I am surprised to see that these categories were deleted - they have been tremendously helpful to me in some of my research for various things I am invoved it. Having a "literature week" and immediately being able to find a list of well-known GLBT authors was increadably simplistic. While I am somewhat against labeling people, when it comes to references and guides, such as Wikipedia, it is nessiasry to assist the reader. Arcuras 22:52, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Frankly, I'm a little surprised at how much I've seen accusations of homophobia lobbied at people in the several discussions, recently, on these categories. Personally, I'm a little upset at how easily some people will pull out the gay card, and assume that the reason people are disagreeing with them is that they're homophobic. I am gay, myself, and not entirely sure about the usefulness of the deleted categories we're discussing, here. I think what it comes down to is why we've written an article about someone. If they're an LGBT activist, then obviously we should put them in an LGBT activist category. But what about someone like Rupert Everett? He's gay, sure, but it's not really important to who he is. He's famous because of his acting, not because of his gayness. I'm just saying that, for many (not all) of the people in these categories, the fact that they're gay is rather secondary. It's been suggested, and I agree 100%, that it is useful to have easily accessable lists of well-known LGBT individuals for research purposes. But could this be accomplished through lists, instead of the category system? I'm just thinking out loud, here. I haven't made a final decision, yet. -- Azkar 00:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Personally I don't like lists because they're sneaky. Its difficult to tell from looking at the main article what lists it is a part of. With categories, everyone can see, and anyone can change they category if it is inappropriate, which seems to me more effective. But hey, I'm curious. Why would a list be better than a category? - Seth Mahoney 02:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Lists can be annotated, while an article's inclusion in a category cannot—a category classification appears to be a bland and unqualified claim to objective fact. Lists do not intrude into the articles that they list, and so an article can be included in hundreds of lists while more than have a dozen categories gets to look like a serious jumble at the bottom of the page. This gets even worse when the categories overlap in subject matter, as when the inevitable happens and, a writer for example, gets classified as a writer under every conceivable social group they belong to— Category:American writers, Category:LGBT writers, Category:African-American writers, Category:Women writers... Leaving out the most basic categories such as Category:American writers means that the individual can only be found through a classification of that identity characteristic—that is "ghettoizing" if anything, and reductionist (she's not a writer first, she's a LGBT African-American woman first). Combining these (i.e., Category:African-American LGBT women writers) would make the category's intersection of arbitrary relationships even worse and would make category navigation rather senseless. Lists avoid all these problems. Postdlf 03:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately, lists avoid the problem of supposedly making statements about articles (I just don't see it that way) by being near-invisible, which means that article authors are less likely to see an article's inclusion in a list, which means that its inclusion is less likely to be debated, which is bad. I also don't see the issue of a category's being foremost in a tree as ghettoizing the prior categories. To me, categories aren't there to make statements or labels for articles, but as avenues for information. People who are interested will click on a given category, if they're interested in the parent categories, they'll go there, if not, mabye they'll go on to a subcategory or whatever. Just because a parent isn't explicitely mentioned in the child article's name doesn't mean it isn't important at all. - Seth Mahoney 04:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

• No, you read my comments backwards. Narrow categories ghettoize articles, not broad categories, and you only seem to be thinking of navigation in one direction—a given article will obviously be more commonly searched to through the category structure than searched from. So what happens when a host of articles are just found in identity-subcats? While the white male hetero articles are in the main, unqualified categories... Bob Straight Man White Boy Jones is a writer, while Rob African-American Gay Man Jones is either an African-American writer, a gay writer, or an African-American gay writer (good luck arguing over which should come first), but regardless he is separated and qualified by his race or sexual orientation. And all this time Rob Jones may not even care about identity politics and just write spy novels. Any comment on the rest of my points? Postdlf 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oh! Gotcha! Maybe I'm weird, but I get to categories from articles when I'm looking for related articles. So I might get to Category: Woodwinds or whatever from Clarinet, and, hey! Look! There are all the woodwinds! I have never actually browsed up the category tree from the bottom, nor have I (I don't even know if you really can) searched for categories. Like I said, though, maybe I'm weird. As far as the rest of your points, I think I've covered them, though maybe obliquely. - Seth Mahoney 05:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Although I disagree with his overall conclusion, I do think Postdlf has a valid argument here. However, I believe that part of the genesis for this conflict is because of the rigidly held view that articles cannot be in subcategories and supercategories. I've been arguing for changing this for months at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, and I think we are close to a compromise that says that articles CAN sometimes be in both super and sub-categories. This is an attempt to address just this concern. I believe this problem comes about because there are multiple category hierarchies in Wikipedia and sometimes the subcategories of one hierarchy can also be thought of as subcategories of another. In this case, those of us working on LGBT categories were not attempting to ghettoize LGBT people, but just trying to create categories we find useful. Others think this makes the supercategories LESS useful. I don't believe the solution is to remove the subcategories. The solution is to make clear guidelines for when there can be duplication. Here is the compromise:

1) Ease up on the no Super/Sub-Category duplication rule. Duplications seem to arise naturally. We should agree to allow duplication when it makes the categories more complete, less confusing or in other ways more useful. I think the rule of thumb could be:

If there aren't subcategories for every member of a category, there can be duplication. Thus, Oscar winners could duplicate film actors, Film musicals could duplicate musicals, Toll bridges could duplicate Bridges, Actors could duplicate African-American actors, etc... This would also hold if the subcategories are more than one level below. So since the entries for Directors by Nationality are two levels below Directors (and many directors are multi-national), there could be duplication.

2) When entries are duplicated, the duplication should be noted. See: Category:Bridges in New York City for an example of how this could be done.

3) Only bend "the rule" with restraint. We're not agreeing to include articles at more than two levels of a hierarchy. There should be a good reason for any duplication. Duplications should only happen if they make categories easier to use. Exceptions of a type that we haven't discussed should be brought up at the categorization talk page for discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 05:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reinstate. Hyacinth 20:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC) We have categories such as Category:U.S. film directors and Category:African-American/Black film directors. Hyacinth 05:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reinstate all subcategories. None should be deleted unless the parent category is also deleted; cluttering up a large category like this is unhelpful. - Sean Curtin 23:02, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Reinstate all. I agree with everything User:VampWillow, User:Bearcat and User:Samaritan (inter alia) wrote. The categories aren't oppressive if most of the LGBT voices in the discussion (including myself) think they're useful and I think it's perfectly legitimate that people might want easy ways of finding, for example, Lesbian feminists. — OwenBlacker 08:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Reinstate all. it is helpful to find people Krugs 15:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reinstate all - the deletion was somewhat sneaky, if there are cats that should be deleted, we can do a vote on every single one of them afterwards. -- AlexR 12:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I just wanted to clarify that undeletion of Category:LGBT Ancient Greeks is not being requested, correct? The first post didn't really clarify beyond stating "occupational categories", of which this one is not. Postdlf 02:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I certainly hope not. I'd rather see Category: LGBT Ancient Greeks go away. - Seth Mahoney 02:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • My vote was to reinstate ALL of the categories deleted in that second vote because of serious concerns about the process. Once we have things back to how it was before that, I'm quite open to discussing how to deal with ancients. Jonathunder 14:45, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with that, actually. I'd rather see each category appear individually on CfD (which is probably gonna happen) than get them all mixed up again. So, thanks for the note Jonathunder. Eyes on the topic at hand! - Seth Mahoney 19:07, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that Category:LGBT Ancient Greeks is somewhat ridiculous. One can't really describe anyone before the 19th century with gender and sexuality labels that didn't exist until then (qv Jonathan Ned Katz's Love Stories: Sex between Men before Homosexuality, ISBN 0226426165). — OwenBlacker 08:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

While I do agree that LGBT is not without problems, there should probably be a cat that lists people who behaved in a way we today describe as LGBT and/or homosexual and/or gender variant. Now we only need a managable title for it. "LGBT Ancient Greeks" is indeed inappropriate. -- AlexR 12:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Kbdank71 14:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

This was created as part of a well-intentioned attempt to clean up after a problem user ( User:Bobber2, now dba User:Bobber1 FYI). However, the only practical result of this category is to list episode articles in alphabetical order. Furthermore, the category tag has not been added to any of the episode articles or the main article, leaving nothing linking to this category. If a reader is interested in episodes of the TV show, they will undoubtedly go to the main article first, where they can then link to episode articles. In other words, this category is "generally a bad idea." Delete. Soundguy99 18:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Someone should vfd all the articles in this category. Assuming they're all deleted, we can delete the category. On the off chance some of them can be expanded (personally, based on what I've looked at, this isn't very likely), then this category would be appropriate. -- Azkar 22:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Well, IMHO, what to do about all the episode articles is a whole other question. Per WP:FICT the characters are not going to have their own articles, I doubt that readers are going to care about locating the episode articles except through the main article on the show, and if the main articles gets too long a new list of episodes can be created. I just don't think this is truly a "Category"; it will never encompass anything but more and more episode articles. Soundguy99 16:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. -- Kbdank71 14:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Should be renamed as category:Religion in Brazil which is standard and accomodates all relevant articles, eg those about Cathedrals, religous history and biogaphies of priests. Oliver Chettle 17:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Support. "Religions of Brazil" would invite too much inclusion, and we'd eventually have articles like Roman Catholicism categorized by every country in which there are Roman Catholics. Postdlf 23:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Good rationale. Samaritan 04:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Kbdank71 14:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I have no objections to categories like this in principle as long as the list is significant enough and the source identified. (e.g., something like "Rolling Stone's 50 best albums ever") But I don't think movies covered in a random documentary deserve a category. Gamaliel 17:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The name appears just as POV of a category as "Greatest Americans" was, which we deleted. It's also too much to create categories for every ranked list. Even the AFI ones may even be too much, but at least those stood out somewhat as notable, and the categories are properly titled to indicate the source of the designation. Include a reference to the movie's inclusion in the list in those articles if absolutely necessary. Postdlf 23:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, especially as - with all of these top/bottom 50/100/1000 lists - the list will change each year and with each newspaper/tv channel creating the list so would be (a) massive POV, and (b) hell to maintain. -- Vamp: Willow 00:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per VampWillow. Samaritan 05:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete because lists like this should be ranked, not alphabetized, so even if this was NPOV or had an authoritative source, it should be in a list, not in a category. -- ssd 04:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Movies considered to be Worst (obviously something tidier!) Although I think this DVD merits an article, it doesn't merit a category. The phenomenon of 'worst ever' though needs embracing. The JPS 13:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply

cf. article deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/The_50_Worst_Movies_Ever_Made

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Kbdank71 14:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicated by the new and better named Category:Transportation in Ottawa. -- Spinboy 16:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete then. Samaritan 05:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.